It's worth pointing out that, while most of what Amnesty traditionally stood for, freedom of conscience and the right to oppose the Government peacefully, was uncontroversial, Amnesty's new stances, on abortion and on same-sex marriage are extremely controversial.
For example, if you were to ask people worldwide whether Aung San Suu Kyi ought to have her freedom restored, the vast majority would say yes. These stances cost Amnesty nothing, and they are true to its founding principles.
If you were, on the other hand, to ask people world wide whether there was a right to abortion, or a right for people of the same-sex to get married, you would find a much higher proportion of people would oppose those propositions.
Amnesty's increased radicalism on these controversial social issues is hurting their core mission, the protection of the freedom of conscience.
Amnesty Internationals core mission is not freedom of conscience. Where in hell did you get that from?
From Amnesty's global site:
Amnesty works to promote, defent and protect ALL human rights. Its work on sexual orientation issues is core to its human rights work on non-descrimination, an over arching human rights principle.Working with and for individuals the world over, we campaign so that every person may enjoy all of the human rights enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. We undertake research and take action aimed at preventing and ending grave abuses of these rights, demanding that all governments and other powerful entities respect the rule of law. It means we campaign globally and locally where ever we can make a difference.
You are way off the mark matey.